This is ridiculous. Should/. have paid the guy who submitted this? What about me for all the moderation I have done? Should my company pay people who fill in customer satisfaction surveys?

I am really getting tired of this/. "google really is evil" meme. I mean, jeez, here we're jumping on them for doing standard market research. When they do something that really is evil (like when Microsoft killed netscape), that will be news.

hey, I wouldn't mind getting paid for my ideas. If you put a significant amount of work into something that's going to get somebody else paid, I don't think it's that wrong to expect some compensation. On the flip side, if you know you aren't going to be paid then you know that your compensation is strictly just getting props. If that bothers you, it's not their fault. If this ideabox doesn't work out then they may start paying people for their ideas.

Actually, I think we're jumping on them for being a multi-billion dollar company cynically taking miserly advantage of the naive Web 2.0/UGC culture. The next logical step would be for them to reward the really, really clever and marketable ideas with limited edition Google Logo pins and official membership cards in the Google Youth. Or maybe the "Google Yooth." Yeah, I like that...

This is nothing new. It's essentially a suggestion box which companies have been using for ages. None of them ever paid you for your ideas.

Secondly you don't what they'll actually do to compensate you. My guess is they would do more than you think but saying so ensure you'll get every moron and their family suggesting anything and everything and it will turn into a legal mess.

It's same reason developers won't take unsolicited ideas from people. Most good ideas will be thought up by more than one person. So if Google were to pay for ideas and Person A gets picked but Person B gave a very similar suggestion then he'll get pissed off and want his compensation.

Or, you suggest something which, it just happens that Google has been working on for 6 months already. They don't give you the money because it's already 80% done. They release it you get hacked off and sue them.

As it is if they forget to give a shout out to someone with a similar suggestion what's the worse that happens, they list their name too?

You can almost certainly guarantee that if you really do have a load of good ideas they'll want to do something to make sure they stay with them and no other company and you could end up with a job there or something.

But the odds are still likely that most suggestions will have been suggested by hundreds, if not thousands of others so it becomes more of a voting system on what people want rather than you giving them the holy grail of internet business.

There is a difference. If you had moderation you didn't have to do it, you contribution of moderating or not has a minimal affect on slashdot as a whole, so the value of your contribution is rather small (financially). Also most sites who takes user input for a product goes into a queue and the most requested features gets put in. The way that Google is doing it is an open brainstorming session where all peoples ideas goes out and everyone can see them. Creating a situation where reading and Idea ca

Unfortunately, there are enough people with this point of view who will never be satisfied. It's almost akin to a conspiracy theory in that if things were made completely transparent and all the facts and evidence were laid out, some people would still maintain that a complete lack of any evidence of evilness or wrongdoing just proves that the organization is hiding something and really is evil.

Google probably isn't evil, but that doesn't mean that they're saints either. There's a pretty large gray area between the two where most people, companies, and organizations tend to operate. Some people, for whatever reason, tend to blur these shades of gray into either black or white. Then again, "Google does some things that I don't like or agree with, but on the whole I find them to be a pretty good company," doesn't generate as many comments or page hits.

Until you can crack open their entire operation and show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Google doesn't abuse their position in at least one way (because that's all it takes, then I'd let go some of my skepticism.

Ok, we get it. You think that Google is evil. But just so that we can judge the accuracy of your opinion, how many people / companies pass your arbitrarily high bar for evil? Can you name just one...

My point got a little lost in the tinfoil hat I appear to have landed on when I posted, but it was moreso that the general opinion is that Google is in no way evil, that they can do no evil, and will do no evil.

I was simply trying to say that by nature of their size and role in the world we live in, they've broken their motto at least once (their foray into the Great Firewall of China is a damn fine example) and that is all it takes.

Until you can crack open their entire operation and show me, beyond a reasonable doubt, that Google doesn't abuse their position in at least one way (because that's all it takes, then I'd let go some of my skepticism.

There's a difference between stating a definite and suspecting. If you want to claim the definite, then you need to have definitive proof. Producing that proof would help others to agree (or disagree) with your point.

Keep your skepticism. It's good to have. Blind faith is for suckers. But until you can show that something really is happening, don't fool yourself in to believing you're omnipotent. You don't know - you suspect.

One evil act by anything or anyone makes a motto of "Do no Evil" broken by default. Is that not enough?

The Devil would be in the details. Was this act done by mistake or by a rogue employee? Or was it reflective of a general company policy? The motto is perfectly fine as long as its not a cynical veil for the true nature in conflict with it.

I understand the reasoning for being suspicious. But again, it's simply suspicion until you can show concrete proof of fact - no matter how well the odds are in your favor.

If you're a zebra, it's not paranoid or delusional to think that a lion will eat you first chance it gets. It's the nature of the beast. Yes, you might have found the one lion in all the jungle that was raised in a vegan commune, or that doesn't have a taste for zebra; but that's an extraordinary claim requiring extraordinary evidence.

If you're an ordinary citizen, it's not paranoid or delusional to think that a large for-profit corporation will screw you fir

It isn't reasonable. No organisation is run in a completely open manner, with ALL communications (and everything else) logged and released. In fact I doubt any human lives a life with that level of transparency.

To say it is the truth that something is evil just because you don't have 100% access to information proving it is paranoid, as it is defining everything you don't know everything about as evil.

I never said they're the lapdog of Satan or big brother

You said they were evil, if that isn't what you meant retract it and state what you did mean. If you did then don't obfuscate the issue with irrelevant things you didn't call them;)

You must not be Christian. After all, aren't we all sinners in the eyes of the Lord? Google, being formed of many many people, must therefore be full of sin. Sin is evil. If Google is full of sin, then it must be full of evil.

Or, do. I would LOVE if every service provider gave me a place to voice my opinion on how they can improve their service without me having to have the expertise to actually execute the idea.

An idea is just that: an idea. It's not a product, it's not a service, it's not even the result of a great deal of work. There are a lot of things I'd like to see companies do that I can't begin to make money off of, but I think they could and I would benefit from them. I don't care if they profit off my ideas, my gain is that they are doing what I want.

Leave it to Slashdot users to find a way to negatively spin it when a company goes to great lengths to give their consumers a voice.

Love your sig. Very funny, but it carries some inaccurate implications and ignores some realities.

In reality, wolves are always deciding what to have for lunch, and if they're looking at a sheep, s/he is not alone but part of a flock. It's not democracy because even if the entire flock votes against the wolves, there's no guarantee that one of them won't be taken. If the sheep really did wander off alone from the flock into the wolves' clutches, the sheep has effectively voted with the wolves, by prox

Google has warned that they will not pay for any ideas that are submitted to them through this interface.

If you think that you have an idea that is worth money to Google, then don't use the ideabox. Go negotiate with Google directly. Patent it (Ugh). Sell it to Yahoo. Start your own company & exploit it. Don't expect anyone else to feel sorry for you because you're jealous but can't think of a way to sponge off of google's wealth.

Like how EVERY SINGLE PROJECT that is worth its salt first starts with a business case.

No. Some start because they seemed like fun to do. Some start because of a simple code fork for something that appeared to be minor, but turned out not to be. Some start as demonstration projects. Some start as academic proof of concept, no initial business intent at all. Some are intended from day one to be public domain, and some are intended to be free to anyone *but* commercial enterprises, unless the commercial

Too bad not everyone plays their fair part in the gift economy. Instead, there's a very high likelihood, that Google can just take the ideas that are submitted, and implement them without providing any reward to the submitter.

Even if there's some EULA/Contract/legal stuff that Google provides at first, good luck taking them to court and winning against this multi-billion dollar corporation.

There's also the problem of providing relevant ideas. In a public forum listing ideas, there maybe many very good one

All too often, we are brought up on the perspective that the "killer" idea is more important than the execution. It's like some type of get-rich-quick scheme for thinkers. This is one area where the patent system used to work, only granting patents on working models are specific implementations - nowadays it's the "killer idea" which some corp or troll patents, sits on it, and waits for someone else to do the work. Truly novel or killer ideas are uncommon - great execution is more important. I would say that Apple's iPods and iPhone are a testament to this. Not one super novel idea in itself, but a slew of good compromises and vision to see it through. Good execution.

I don't think society progresses far when people hoarde their ideas in the mistaken beliefs that it's all gold (rather than the 99.999% fool's gold that they are) or actually more novel than it really is and not collaborating with anyone. I would look to Paul Erdos as the ultimate example of intellectual collaboration.

The problem is that ideas that seem good are plenty. It's like blades of grass. The problem is getting yours to stick out, so that the corporation actually picks your and pours their resources into executing it. I would imagine it's a good feeling if something actually came out of it.

Here's how we'll work together, you guys come up with these great ideas and we'll execute and become even more wealthy then previously seemed possible. Thanks!

You forgot: Oh, and after we execute your cool idea, you'll get to use it.

99.99% of ideas you come up with are going to be things you want. Here are some options:

Keep the idea to yourself, raise the necessary capital to implement it, hire the right people to implement, package, market and sell it, and become wealthy yourself. That's excellent, and it allows you to use the realization of your idea, in exactly the form you want, but it's damned hard.

They're not taking it, they're copying the idea. After all, you can do something with your idea yourself. It's not like they physically vacuum the idea out of your head, unless someone invents the (generic brand) mind-sifter.

After all, if your idea wasn't any good to you, why when they take their resources to do it should you bother to get paid?

How about the publicity? Wouldn't "Google implemented my idea" be worth something?

Department stores (and maybe even Wal-Marts) used to have suggestion boxes. As did many restaurants or often you'd get questionnaire cards with a purchase which often asked for suggestions on how they can improve. I suspect a lot of places still do this.

Google at least lays out all the terms and let you decide what to do. Most other suggestion methods say nothing and if they use your idea you don't even get a "shout out" so all Google has done was take an old idea and made it more open. If you don't like

Why shouldn't they ask for ideas from users? It's part of any business relationship that both sides profit. Since I rarely click on ads, I've probably gotten more use out of google products than they got in return. If I had a good idea, I'd have no problem to let them know. At the least, their products get better and I get to use the cool new feature. Most of the ideas are probably worthless to individuals anyway, since they might only be a feature, not a product.

Plus, all the ideas are out in the open for everyone to see, so any competitor is free to implement them as well.

Quite agree. I suspect you'll find that Google already gets a large number of people contacting them suggesting they do this or that. Having a centralised place where they can employ a guy to sift the wheat from the chaff seems a sensible next step.

Other people create the articles, we create the original content that draw people to this site. People love having a soapbox where they think others will listen to their ideas. So I don't understand the tone of the summary.

OTOH, years ago, people working at Nintendo (USA) told me that when they recieved letters, they put them in the trash as soon as it became apparent it was an "idea" letter for a game. They didn't want the liability. How is google going to curb this aspect?

OTOH, years ago, people working at Nintendo (USA) told me that when they recieved letters, they put them in the trash as soon as it became apparent it was an "idea" letter for a game. They didn't want the liability. How is google going to curb this aspect?

The letters to Nintendo were unsolicited. Google requires you to agree to their TOS [google.com] before you can post an idea.

11.1 You retain copyright and any other rights you already hold in Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. By submitting, posting or displaying the content you give Google a perpetual, irrevocable, worldwide, royalty-free, and non-exclusive licence to reproduce, adapt, modify, translate, publish, publicly perform, publicly display and distribute any Content which you submit, post or display on or through, the Services. This licence is for the sole purpose of enabling Google to display, distribute and promote the Services and may be revoked for certain Services as defined in the Additional Terms of those Services.

With respect to text or data entered into and stored by publicly-accessible site features such as forums, comments and bug trackers ("SourceForge Public Content"), the submitting user retains ownership of such SourceForge Public Content; with respect to publicly-available statistical content which is generated by the site to monitor and display content activity, such content is owned by SourceForge. In each such case, the submitting user grants SourceForge the

Most people I know (myself included) have a lot of ideas, both good and bad, but have no idea or resources to make the idea into a marketable and/or profitable idea.
The fact that your idea could be made real by anyone else and accessible worldwide is pretty much its own thing to brag about.

Not to mention, just being credited with coming up with Google's next big thing is enough to almost certainly land you a well paid job for life somewhere.

Yeah, good luck with that one on your resume.

"I came up with the idea for Google's 'Whatchawhoozit' module that has revolutionized the industry. Um, they didn't give me any credit for it or anything but trust me I did submit it through their idea portal."

Alternatively, "I came up with the idea for Google's 'Whatchawhoozit' module that has revolutionized the industry. If you go into Help, About, Credits, Contributers, North America, Submitters and increase the font you'll see me. Right there! Yes, I'm th

Not to carp, but as far as I know none of the Ennead ever got paid. Of course, had they existed in the days of the RIAA, Euterpe,Polyhymnia and probably Terpsichore would have been served with writs pronto. This would have been a Good Thing, because Zeus had a thoroughgoing way of dealing with people who pissed off his relatives. But I digress...

As I keep telling our sales people, there is something of a gulf between having an idea and actually implementing it. Also, an invention is supposed to solve a problem, not just to state it. I may think it is a good idea to find a way of checking the extent to which bears poo in the woods, but when someone patents the improved device and process for facilitating mensuration and analysis of the sylvan/urban mass ratio of ursine faeces, I really shouldn't expect to profit.

This is naive at best - and disingenuous at worst. Greek drama was framed within the context of a religious festival. But it was also a competitive exhibition for the playwrights and the winner did not go home empty-handed.

First, I was commenting on the "unpaid muse". The Muses, the ennead, were daughters of Zeus and so, of course, they didn't get paid. Which was the basis of my (feeble) joke, but was making the serious point that the original idea (inspiration) was attributed to them, while human beings did all the work.
Second, your point about drama, even if correct, is badly made because I did not include the Muse of Drama in my list, as I was making a joke about the RIAA. My point

When Canonical/Ubuntu takes an idea and runs with it, odds are good that everyone benefits, and the results are freely shared without any real encumbrance or price.

When a for-profit company takes an idea and runs with it, odds are better than good that everyone will have to pay for the privilege of reaping the benefits, and a patent or two will prevent anyone else from implementing it for at least the next 25 years.

Not that I'm taking sides (after all, Google's idea-gathering is voluntary), but that's how it usually shakes out.

Funny, I checked my wallet and bank account and no where do I see those adds taking money out. Hmm, maybe the advertisers pay for those adds so that I can use those services for free. I'll have to call them and verify this outlandish claim.

Funny, I checked my wallet and bank account and no where do I see those adds taking money out. Hmm, maybe the advertisers pay for those adds so that I can use those services for free. I'll have to call them and verify this outlandish claim.

Ads are taking up your time, bandwidth, resources etc. Also, Google is profiting from your use of its products. To put it another way: Remove the ads and you have a faster/more streamlined experience. Compare a Google search to a Wikipedia search, for example.

Okay, you do that. Preferably on the chin though - I have a date tomorrow night and a black eye would be troublesome.
Anyone who contributes has decided they are okay with it. So what - it is their idea, not yours.

If it is that good of an idea, hopefully you wouldn't just give it away. Would it be a 'duh' moment? Yes. But I doubt someone coming up with a brilliant idea will fail to realize the potential of an idae.

The point is that if Google takes someone else's ideas and makes a fortune on them then that is just wrong.

Why?

I know someone'll probably answer why making money off someone else's work is wrong, so I'll deal with that now: they aren't the same thing. Ideas are very nice, but they aren't a usable product; making them so is the work part.

Coming up with the idea of a perpetual motion machine, a matter transporter or an automatic translator is an entirely different thing - and a considerably easier one -

anyone is free to use oss software at no charge as long as that person does not derive financial benefit.

Really? Where does it say that? Last I heard, Red Hat do. And IBM. And Novell.
Is this another thing that can be "obviously inferred" from something that actually says something totally different?

if your boss/manager/superior stole your ideas and suggested to others within your company that they were his own you would not be so philosophical about the whole thing. You would be highly annoyed. Admit

But you're missing the point. The point is that if Google takes someone else's ideas and makes a fortune on them then that is just wrong.

How?

If Google steals an idea and makes a fortune on it, then sure, it's wrong. But if they use an idea that was freely given to them through this service, where the stated goal is to possibly be used in Google's products.... what's the problem? The submitter knew what Google was going to do with the idea, and submitted it anyway.

...with absolutely f*** all to do right now as we only have one real product, search, and we're hesitant to make big changes to it... Please give us the ideas we obviously cannot think up on our own so we can give these guys/gals something to do because bored smart people tend to leave no matter how good the bennies are.";)

Do you realize how many engineers Google actually has?;) Google should really create a new product line/direction and become seriously devoted to it. Can you imagine, with the talent Google has, what they could do with Open Office (or build a new platform with the same goal) or if they wanted to obliterate Exchange Server? Unfortunately, this is not (as far as I can tell) Google's goal. Google's goal is search, search infrastructure, and fun little add-ons like gMail, simulations, Google docs, et ceter

Can you imagine, with the talent Google has, what they could do with Open Office (or build a new platform with the same goal)

I think Google would much rather you used Google Docs than Open Office. I would characterise Docs as a 'serious product'. Sure you can't use it offline, but Google works on the assumption you're always online.

The ethics code requires contributions by others to be "properly credited." It by no means requires the contributors to be paid (unless of course pay was promised.) Also, if credit is explicitly not promised (as in this case), failing to credit is not against the code.

A way to finally contact Google? It's so difficult to get in contact with them normally - even if you're paying them (in the case of AdWords).
Perhaps we can finally start talking to real people at Google, or at least have them read some of our grievances.

Google wants product and/or feature ideas. So what? That's a long way from actual implemented products. I'm minded of a comment by a published author to one of those fans with an "I've got a story idea, if you'll write it we can split the money 50-50." request: "You have a story idea? So do I. They're easy, I come up with a couple dozen story ideas a day. Actually writing it, spending 8 hours a day for the next 6 months hunkered over a keyboard hammering it into a full story and then into a finished manuscr

Meh, did you notice that since firehose, we are getting a lot more ridiculously anti-google stories? It makes sense to criticize google about privacy and stuff, but for example, check out the post about google's christmas bonuses, along with this one...

I submitted an idea to them a while ago where I proposed that they include exchange rates in Google Calculator. A few weeks later, the feature was there.

While this is such a simple idea that they've probably gotten hundreds of requests for it, I am grateful that they included it.

In fact, I never considered that I should be rewarded. They also stated so clearly on the submission page (which I can't find right now). I use the feature frequently, and am glad it is there. It's a benefit for me as well as for Go

Google can hardly file a patent for this strategy: certain game and other software developers have been doing this for some time. They release unfinished skeletal software and then rely on the eager-but-clueless users of the product to identify problems and shortcomings and suggest future evolution. The users become unpaid Q&A or R&D staff without ever being the wiser. They don't even get business cards to flash at parties.

Google, who along with other SV powerhouses tap their next biggest ideas from the universities, Stanford in particular. This move is definitely out in left field.

.

Weird? maybe. Expected? likely. My [conspiracy] theory is that the VCs have realized that most of the academic-based ideas really don't reflect what the true public/consumer wants (i.e. ideas that don't make money). Google outsources idea generation to the universities, hands down. Google trying to go free/public ideas is just a focus group app